Originally posted by DeeKlassified
Ha, that would be like the whole 9/11 forum!

I've toyed with the idea and have been asked numerous times to write a 9/11 thread and possibly some day I will write that thread on the topic. If I
do someday write it I'll guarantee you I'd piss off both sides while pointing out massive inconsistencies and regurgitated fallacies in both sides
arguments while still brutally questioning the OS.

In the meantime, my interests are elsewhere.
Feel free to read through the links provided in my signature

If being passionate about believing in the OS puts a person under suspsion of being a shill, then the equally passionate "truthers" should be under
equal suspicion of being a conspiracy nut -- or maybe someone who peddles quack conspiracy theories for profit, or even worse.

edit on 8/3/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

EDIT TO ADD:
Sorry for the long quote S.O. -- I must have forgot to trim out the unneeded parts

edit on 8/3/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no
reason given)

I cannot hope to keep up with your prodigious output, but here's another post, from me.

It's not the end.

It is the signal, the cue, for a fresh spate of falsies.

WHY IS THIS MAN DRIVING=NEW FALSE FLAG TERROR ACTIVITY

Now sit back and enjoy the show, maybe think of kinder, gentler machine gun hands, caressing us back from emotional trauma. But no rough stuff, eh?

Okay....

Maybe, these are the types of responses are the reasons why I never really participate in the 9/11 forums?

Oh, I thought everyone was familiar with the WHY IS THIS MAN DRIVING story. It was the headline in the Chicago Sun Times, on the day of the drone
strike at the asbestos site. I'll dig it out and load my very first picture. It shows a blow up of a guy who tried to drive his motor vehicle, but
without a valid license to do so. The cops dug into his junk and pre-empted his attempt to violate the law.

I threw away all the [HOAX] material published over the next decade, about 911 and Muslim fanatics, but I absolutely kept the WHY IS THIS MAN DRIVING
story, because I was bent on keeping it three hours before the false flag was conducted. It spoke to me. It smelled rotten, and three hours later,
bam. Therefore I am expecting something new, since the news is so slow, and since I can't say 'shill' anymore.

I tossed in a little dialog from Taxi Driver, because it's appropriate. You remember this?

You can xxxx her up the xxx, xxxx in her mouth, xxxx on her face, pull her hair, but no rough stuff, eh?

spoken by sport, the pimp, played by Harvey Keitel

That's what this feels like.

ETA that a crushing blow's been dealt to the annals of my hard files. I cannot at the present locate the WHY WAS THIS MAN DRIVING headline, as well as
a paper showing bono assuring another rock star, that he felt U2 did deserve the best album award that year, because U2 had missed getting the prize
on two of their prior releases.

Bono assured Kayne that next year, the best album would go to him.

These were set-in-stone truths reported by the Amerikan media, which influenced our lives, all of us. Now it's lost, perhaps to be [HOAX]ed, and we're
left with abiding with agents who are protected against suspicion, just because there are still so many stories being printed, to make it commercially
viable.

More news: the printed U2/bono ego study has been found. I will necessarily attempt a thread on the medical condition. All hope is not lost, we may
still get to the truth on this pressing matter. ALL truth is useful. [HOAX]es, are not.

WHY IS THIS MAN DRIVING may be in storage. I know, at least, that hundreds of thousands of copies were circulated, so I am confident we can get to the
bottom of why this man was driving.

No, you are correct, but acting in a way that is obvious you have no interest in finding the truth, and every interest in painting a certain picture
to protect the OS is very suspicious.

But that can be said for many topics.
Take the existance of god for example.
You are not likely to shake either sides conviction. But you just don't call them shills.
Shill comes across as a derogitory term.

My personal opinion about shills are this.
Companies do employee people to talk up their goods or services. Or to do damage control to specific complaints.
But I don't believe 911 has shills because of so many different companies and agencies and theories involved.

I'd still like a hard confirmation one way or the other as to whether the terms truther and OSer is acceptable .

Hmm, so no one has an answer to my question? How does one raise their "WATS" rating and does that mean that long term users of this site like myself
who don't cause problems (five years now), but also don't post often or start many threads (I've only done one) are not allowed to start threads in
the 9/11 forum because my WATS rating is only three?

How does one raise that rating and is this policy being fair to "lurkers" shall I say who are occasionally only posters that do not accumulate "stats"
very quickly? I feel like even though I've caused no problems on this site, not even in heated discussions in 9/11 forums and have used this site
without issue for five years that now I somehow have to "earn" the right to start a thread in this forum if I so choose? I think your policy could use
a bit of a tweak because that doesn't really seem fair to me.

Just for the record, I've never called anyone a "shill" or "disinfo agent" and find it pretty ridiculous. As others have mentioned, I get more
irritated at being called a "truther", mostly because the way it is said, or the perceived "tone" of it is intended as an insult. "Shill" or "Disinfo
agent" are just laughable to me. When someone is called a "truther", it is often in the form of spit venom. The other two I don't care much for and
find more childish than anything else and does nothing but work to derail threads.

Why is it many members can spot shills, but mods seem to have blinkers on?

It's not impossible, if intelligent members can spot shill behaviours in that forum then the mods sure can.

Nice example here of the type of thing that forced the close down.

You just don't get it do you?

A viewpoint different to your own does not make someone a "shill" or a "paid poster", it simply means that they have a viewpoint that
differs from yours

All that happens by applying such labels is polarisation, and from that point on closed minds prevail, no discussion can be had and the whole point of
a discussion forum is lost, because the conversation becomes adversarial and dictatorial.

ATS is a discussion forum, for people to talk about things. Not a one way street dictating a single viewpoint on a topic. And that is
the same regardless of what anyones personal beliefs are

Board staff don't spot "shills" because, frankly there is no proof of it, its entirely subjective to the person using the term and the
implication is an ad hominem attack on a poster simply to try and discredit an opposing viewpoint, which is against the site T&C

I'd like to restate there were a bunch of folk who dragged me into their strange lair and tried to get me on their "side". I appreciate the efforts
made by this site and it is one of the reasons I stick around. Gracias para su decision.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.